[331c8c71]

> Do you picture what a person must pull off to get that seat? It's unimaginable.

On the other hand there is a seat that must be filled and hence there will be somebody taking that place. It's a zero sum game: if you win I lose.

I would rate proving Poincare conjecture and that kind of thing much higher because its _not_ zero-sum and is a pure advancement.

[quadcore]

Thanks for bringing that up.

More and more for practical purposes I tend to believe that - sit tight - everybody is solving or capable of solving the Poincaré conjecture. Let me explain.

Granted some people are simple, but most are actually very gifted at what they do ; it's just that the type of engineering they do is different than yours (or mine, whatever). Besos says "there is a million types of inteligence".

Some are good at making dramas for example - and they'd beat you at that game every single day. Some others are good at, I dont know, working out.

Many people are very very good at playing dumb is actually my very point. And they love that. If you are observant, you'll see little clues that they are geniuses in some ways. It's just that they dont care about advancement. In itself it's a form of dumbness but beside that, they freaking good.

You can easily do x2 on your percieved intelligence and engineering capabilities of people. They way way better at what they do than meet the eye. Especially nowdays as they are educated.

It's very practical to think that way Ive found.

[n4r9]

I'm not sure what point you're making. Chess is zero-sum (modulo draws), but being world #1 is impressive.

[mcmoor]

I guess what he means that being #1 doesn't always means you're that good, maybe the competitors are just lame. Some videos of Olympic 1918 shows that the winner is totally unimpressive because the participants are just few amateurs. But after all it's another function of supply (seat) vs demand (challengers).